Uncharacteristically, Leonard Pitts’ column on gay marriage June 15 was poorly researched and thought out.

Mr. Pitts simplistically portrays the controversy as religious vs. civil marriage, disregarding tens of thousands of gay Americans whose marriages are recognized by their religions and by law.

Mr. Pitts discusses “traditional marriage” as though it were immutable. Which traditional marriage?

Throughout most of America’s history, marriage was not religious. Biblical traditional marriage was polygamy. Does he mean traditional marriage in which only the husband had a voice? Traditional marriage that jailed blacks who married whites?

Mr. Pitts proffers civil unions as a more palatable alternative to gay marriage. The 1964 Virginia Supreme Court declared: “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay, red, and he placed them on separate continents. But for interference with his arrangements there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows he did not intend for the races to mix.”

Against such blatant bigotry, would Mr. Pitts have proposed a more palatable alternative to mixed-race marriage?

Civil rights are never to be put to popular vote. It is asking the oppressor to decide the rights of the oppressed. Had popular vote prevailed, the horrible truth is Mr. Pitts would be property.

Sadly, discrimination permanently stains our history. Will it forever stain our future? It takes courage to stand up to bigotry, especially masquerading as religion. For us to be the land of the free, we must first be the home of the brave.

Lew Alessio, Greene

Copy the Story Link